Apparent Biblical Discrepancies.

[bob b]

This is a thread for skeptics to get things about the Bible "off their chests".

Let's stick with the major items to get started.

We start with Jukia and his aversion to a young Earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukia

Jukia said: "You can start with a 6 to 10000 year old earth. I know, I know, time dilation and all that other nonsense you like to spout but the earth is clearly much much older than 6-10000 years. And before anyone demands that I "prove it" I will give my standard response "Learn some science".

To which I replied:

You believe that the Earth is old because of two things, that is what you have been taught and that is what "everybody says".

These were the same two reasons that for some 2000 years people believed that the Sun and stars revolved about a stationary Earth.

But then a few people discovered some "new science", and the rest is history.

Einstein discovered relativity almost a hundred years ago, but there are still some who disbelieve.

 

[Jukia]

And I posted:
People believed the sun and stars revolved around the earth until technology allowed people to discern the true facts. People believed the earth to be young (well at least those who read the Bible literally) until technology allowed people to discern the true facts.
Get a life bob b.

 

[fool]

Why do YECs use a range 6000-10000 ?
Seems it should be exact if ya got a book tellin it from the start.

 

[Jukia]

Why do YECs use a range 6000-10000 ?
Seems it should be exact if ya got a book tellin it from the start.

I think Bishop Ussher's calculations give an exact #, perhaps to the exact date and time, although I am not sure there has been any adjustment for changes between Julian and Gregorian calendar, but I forget the exact #. I am sure someone on this board can help with that.

 

[Aimiel]

Creation: October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning, according to Ussher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5th_millennium_BC

 

[bob b]

Why do YECs use a range 6000-10000 ?
Seems it should be exact if ya got a book tellin it from the start.

Several reasons, starting with the fact that there are multiple sources for the ancient text.

The LXX source differs from our usual KJV in the pre-flood geneologies. Obviously there were copying errors because the time spans are off in many cases by exactly 100 years, yielding a total difference in the LXX of about a thousand years (longer).

Other people claim that there is no difference between son and grandson in Hebrew, meaning that it would be possible for missing generations. I personally doubt this myself: the text seems to be written in a manner designed to defeat misinterpretations like that.

At any rate people feel that by allowing a suitable range they have covered all of the above possibilities.

 

[eisenreich]

If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past?

You believe that the Earth is old because of two things, that is what you have been taught and that is what "everybody says".

If modern dating methods are completely wrong, why do Christians immediately run to C-14 dating when a Christian artifact is found?

 

[bob b]

And I posted:
People believed the sun and stars revolved around the earth until technology allowed people to discern the true facts. People believed the earth to be young (well at least those who read the Bible literally) until technology allowed people to discern the true facts.
Get a life bob b.

You are correct that technological advancements do lead to better knowledge. This is precisely why the laboratory experiments to determine the rarily of "good proteins" are so important in the debate over macroevolution.

But as far as verifying the dates obtained by measuring radioactive decay products, the dispute is not over the laboratory measurements themselves, but instead is over the assumptions which are used to convert the measurements into estimated dates when the rocks were first formed. If the assumptions are wrong then the dates obtained from the calculations would be necessarily wrong as well. Unfortunately there is no completely independent manner in which to "calibrate" or validate the assumptions, except in the case of C-14, where counting tree rings does this job.

 

[Aimiel]

If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit?

Is it too much of a 'stretch' to believe that The One Who created everything out of nothing would have enough sense to know the speed of light, and create stars along with their 'visible' light so that they could be observed instantly, upon thier creation, even though they are so distant?

 

[Jukia]

Is it too much of a 'stretch' to believe that The One Who created everything out of nothing would have enough sense to know the speed of light, and create stars along with their 'visible' light so that they could be observed instantly, upon thier creation, even though they are so distant?

No, but it means that He set the whole system up to confuse us.

 

[Aimiel]

No, but it means that He set the whole system up to confuse us.

He obviously doesn't want anyone to be able to prove or dis-prove His existance. If His design were confusion, the laws of physics might be set on a timer to change, ever so slightly, at random; or perhaps worse.

 

[Jukia]

He obviously doesn't want anyone to be able to prove or dis-prove His existance. If His design were confusion, the laws of physics might be set on a timer to change, ever so slightly, at random; or perhaps worse.

Are you serious or am I just missing the satire or humor?

 

[fool]

Is it too much of a 'stretch' to believe that The One Who created everything out of nothing would have enough sense to know the speed of light, and create stars along with their 'visible' light so that they could be observed instantly, upon thier creation, even though they are so distant?

So he created it with the appearence of great age?
Why would he do such a thing?

 

[bob b]

If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past?

It was not that the speed of light was faster, it was that the universe was expanded to its present size within a short time (possibly 2 picoseconds). Any first light waves would then have been expanded along with it, in a sense expanding the light "in transit" and allowing it to be seen immediately on the Earth, thus solving the "light in transit" problem automatically. God apparently works with His laws, not against them.

If modern dating methods are completely wrong, why do Christians immediately run to C-14 dating when a Christian artifact is found?

They are not "completely wrong". C-14 has been verified by tree ring dating back at least to the time of the flood, for the oldest living tree (when cut down) dated almost precisely to when the Bible said the Flood ended. I find this "coincidence" fascinating.

 

[Apologist]

You believe that the Earth is old because of two things, that is what you have been taught and that is what "everybody says".

Carbon dating and archeological findings, whether or not they prove the existence of a multi million/billion year old earth, at least prove the existence of stuff that existed WAAAY more than 10 thousand years. The evidence has been given time and time again through archeology and earth science for an extremely old earth. The burden of proof has been satisfied on the part of the scientists and the archeologists. I have yet to see any proof given of a young earth.

 

[Aimiel]

So he created it with the appearence of great age? Why would he do such a thing?

I don't believe the earth displays 'great age' like most of today's 'scientists' would postulate. Their basic science behind the meaning of C-14 dating is too flawed. The sheer foolishness of accepting evolution as scientific without any real proof is proof enough to me of their lack of scientific abilities.

 

[allsmiles]

I don't believe the earth displays 'great age' like most of today's 'scientists' would postulate. Their basic science behind the meaning of C-14 dating is too flawed. The sheer foolishness of accepting evolution as scientific without any real proof is proof enough to me of their lack of scientific abilities.

he's talking about the light traveling from distant stars to earth, light that would perhaps take 100,000 years to arrive here, perhaps even after the star has already died. why would your god have created it to appear old when it really isn't? to trip us up? we do have to remember that we're dealing with a god who was alarmed at the idea of a ziggurat reaching his abode in the clouds.

 

[Jukia]

I don't believe the earth displays 'great age' like most of today's 'scientists' would postulate. Their basic science behind the meaning of C-14 dating is too flawed. The sheer foolishness of accepting evolution as scientific without any real proof is proof enough to me of their lack of scientific abilities.

Uh huh, and your belief is no doubt based on some training of substance in physics or geology.

 

[Aimiel]

he's talking about the light traveling from distant stars to earth, light that would perhaps take 100,000 years to arrive here, perhaps even after the star has already died. why would your god have created it to appear old when it really isn't? to trip us up? we do have to remember that we're dealing with a god who was alarmed at the idea of a ziggurat reaching his abode in the clouds.

Light would take just a little over four years to reach here from the nearest star, if God had not created the stars with their 'visible' light at the same time. He didn't do this to 'trip' anyone, but so that they wouldn't trip, for instance when going to the woods to relieve themselves (the stars provide more than enough light to see where you're going, and to keep from tripping over an obstacle). And, He wasn't worried about His Creation 'reaching' anything, He just has to keep out the riff-raff. His Home isn't defiled, and He can't allow sin into His Presence.

 

[fool]

It was not that the speed of light was faster, it was that the universe was expanded to its present size within a short time (possibly 2 picoseconds). Any first light waves would then have been expanded along with it, in a sense expanding the light "in transit" and allowing it to be seen immediately on the Earth, thus solving the "light in transit" problem automatically. God apparently works with His laws, not against them.

Wow, this is getting really old, once again:
For your scheme to work the galaxies would have to have been in their present form prior to the expansion in order to leave a light trail that shows them in their present form, second if you had a miniuture universe, and them expanded it, you'd red-shift your light so far to cover the billions of years of distance that you wouldn't even see them.
I think it would be best if you stopped trying to find rational explainations for the light shift problem and fall back on the "God did it" formula.

They are not "completely wrong". C-14 has been verified by tree ring dating back at least to the time of the flood, for the oldest living tree (when cut down) dated almost precisely to when the Bible said the Flood ended. I find this "coincidence" fascinating.

Bob, we just did this, if you take the rings of modern trees and corospond them with older dead one you can build a sequence back much farther than 6000 yrs.
And as far a your pine tree goes, that's old news, they got a 12000 yr old bush that's all the rage now.
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm#oldest